Filed: Apr. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINITFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Re: Dkt. No. 71 (18-cv-02626), 80 (18-cv-02628) SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On December 11, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss Raq Bey's second amended complaint in case no. 18-cv-02628. Dkt. No. 67. On March 5, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in case no. 18-cv-02626. Dkt. No. 66. On March 27, 2019, plaintiff filed a "P
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINITFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Re: Dkt. No. 71 (18-cv-02626), 80 (18-cv-02628) SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On December 11, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss Raq Bey's second amended complaint in case no. 18-cv-02628. Dkt. No. 67. On March 5, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in case no. 18-cv-02626. Dkt. No. 66. On March 27, 2019, plaintiff filed a "Pe..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINITFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Re: Dkt. No. 71 (18-cv-02626), 80 (18-cv-02628)
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
On December 11, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss Raq Bey's second amended complaint in case no. 18-cv-02628. Dkt. No. 67. On March 5, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in case no. 18-cv-02626. Dkt. No. 66.
On March 27, 2019, plaintiff filed a "Petition for writ of Mandamus" with the Ninth Circuit, challenging the Court's orders on the motions to dismiss in both cases. Dkt. No. 69 in 18-2626. On April 8, 2019, plaintiff filed two motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 71 in 18-cv-02626; see also Dkt. No. 80 in 18-cv-02628.
On April 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for mandamus finding "Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus ... the petition is denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed petition." Ninth Circuit Case No. 19-70758.
Following the Ninth Circuit's guidance, as there are no factual discrepancies between the pending in forma pauperis applications, and because final judgment has not been entered in either district court case, plaintiff's motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
